After Starmer

What would Labour do differently under a new leader?

A popular leader with strong backing from their party could, perhaps, survive the Mandelson scandal. All we know for sure is that Starmer was aware the former US ambassador had links to Epstein when appointing him last year. But then so was everyone else, it was in the public domain, and few expressed concerns. That raises plenty of questions about Westminster’s sense of priorities, but also shows the Prime Minister was not alone in thinking it was an acceptable appointment before the extent and nature of Mandelson’s contact became clear.

Starmer is, though, already so damaged that any scandal could finish him off. When a PM has so little authority left over their party, and so few diehard supporters on the benches behind them, it’s only a matter of time. It is not as if there’s any great programme of policy to defend. In lieu of star power or vision Starmer was supposed to offer propriety and stability. As Duncan Robinson put it in The Economist “If Sir Keir had a purpose, it was stopping things like this.” And he hasn’t.

Given that most Labour MPs thought his position was terminal even before the past week, all that is keeping him in place are questions of timing and process. The party rulebook requires a named challenger backed by 80 MPs, but none of the main contenders are currently seeking signatures. Nor is there any agreement on who the successor should be. All factions of the party are nervous about moving for fear the wrong person will win. Senior MPs are coalescing around a plan to send a delegation of ministers or select committee chairs to ask for Starmer’s resignation. But that can get very messy if the Prime Minister decides to stay and fight. Ask the Tories.

This may all drag on for a while. Controversial Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney may be sacrified to buy a little more time. But whether Starmer goes next week; after a poor result in the Gorton and Denton by-election; after a miserable set of May elections; or when some further embarrassment emerges from the trove of Mandelson-related documents that will be released in the coming months; he will go at some point.

Which leads to an obvious question: what, if anything, would be different under a new leader? The alternatives might have more charisma (as does the average accountant) but they would be facing the same set of fiscal and economic challenges, struggling public services and grumpy voters. As Starmer has shown it’s hard to come up with a coherent plan for government even with the luxury of years in opposition, let alone from a standing start. So in the rest of the post I’ll review the possible outcomes of a contest and then look at what the most likely winners might try to do, given all the constraints.